Datatec Share Discussion Threads

[garysmith7] 15/11/2005 02:01

If the deal is only to produce the program, then again you prove another point I made about DTC losing out on the rights? It should also be noted that is where I used the term losing out too?

If DTC aren't taking any risk and making £400K each time then that's good business. WPM could have gone to another TV company.

[garysmith7] 15/11/2005 02:00

Do you think it was correct that this board only heard about CH's ownership of WPM on this board, months after an announcement by DTC (CH) of an agreement affectively by him as CEO of DTC and with him as owner of WPM without any disclosure? Yes or No?

Assuming he was owner/director of WPM at the time then I would have preferred to have known but whether CH is under a legal obligation to disclose this I don't know.

[garysmith7] 15/11/2005 01:59

Iambic pays her wages, therefore DTC pays her wages, let alone any costs of the competition delay for a company that is not owned by DTC. So are their penalty clauses for DTC to claim?

Like you I am not privy to the contract details so would not know.

[garysmith7] 15/11/2005 01:57

Is it true that on the WPM from the beginning has been an employee of Iambic?

I believe Iambic email is being used but I don't know if the person is employed by iambic.

[garysmith7] 15/11/2005 01:55

Did a post attributed to Mr Hunt to this board state effective that no money was being spent by DTC in the running of WPM? YES or NO?

YES, but I have no way of knowing the validity of the message although my guess is its genuine. Are you saying you have evidence DTC have spent money and will not or have not been reimbursed?
As a general point I think it is acceptable for a company to spend money to make money otherwise the capitalist system would collapse.

[garysmith7] 15/11/2005 01:55

next two questions already answered.

[garysmith7] 15/11/2005 01:52

Your comment on accounts seems to not realise that they ARE the latest results, as those for 2005 would not have to be produced yet or indeed even submitted yet, and instead of quoting these why not check with Companies House, then you would know...but again it seems easier for some of you to have a go at me, then to take the trouble to actually find out from someone other than those who may have previously given duff information. On top of that, as there has not been any competition, which is what WPM relies on, although there have been additional expenses since, so how do suppose that WPM has earnings or assets better than the published accounts?
I have the public data from companies house for WPM ltd(cost me £3) so I know what they contain.

I wholly or partly own LTD companies myself (and am a director), my CoHouse made up accounts like WPM are from a period long time ago (2004), they do not reflect the cash in the bank at present. They also don't reflect how I am funded also my shareholding structure has changed which is not reflected at Cohouse yet as I haven't told them. So I don't see how you know how WPM is funded and its cash position at this moment in time? Unless you are their banker?

[garysmith7] 15/11/2005 01:51

Do you also believe the lame excuse about the Tsunami and the changed venue as a reason for the delay of the competition, when even now on WPM's own site it shows conclusively that there was only ever one venue advertised (the current one) and that there are still only 21 players?

I agree the Tsunami sounds a bit lame but it doesn't mean it's a lie and I have no proof it is. The site hasn't been updated for a while and there are a few months to go so they have time to get the remaining players. For all I know they have them already. Unless of course you know different?

[garysmith7] 15/11/2005 01:49

You accuse me of interpreting, yet you have interpeted (against facts) that DTC have kept to their modus operandi,when that hardly seems possible does it, when they don't own the rights to the program, and are being paid for the production of the program, which hasn't taken place has it!

What facts exactly?
I am pointing out another possible interpretation that it's quite possible to have kept to their modus operandi and obtained pre-commitments from buyers , I am not making a judgement or specific personal interpretation. The facts are they are televising the event not staging it and this can be with pre-commitments from buyers

[garysmith7] 15/11/2005 01:44

You then say IF DTC have kept to their modus operandi then they would not have lost out, but if you read my comments they are correct, as they say DTC has already lost out by not having the rights? That is correct isn't it after all you agree that DTC's only interst is in the production of the TV programme not in ownership of it?

DTC have the TV rights as per the interims..see previous answer

[garysmith7] 15/11/2005 01:37

It is not possible that they have kept to their modus operandi is it, because the competition, not directly owned by DTC is out of DTC's hands, so they can't have presold that, as it's not their to sell, the rights as Jabber's links suggest go to the founder Mr Chris Hunt, not to DTC.

Yes it is very possible if they have the pre commitment of buyers for the televisual rights or the funding from WPM. Which we can all speculate on but we don't really know the answer.

[garysmith7] 15/11/2005 01:06

As like IJ I suddenly have a lot of time on my hands I have answered one at a time in BOLD type.

Gary how is it an interpretation, it is a fact? DTC should have had money in the bank shouldn't they...but now they haven't with the delay? DTC are paying Angela's wages? That is a loss whatever way you dress it up, as is a delay.

How do you know they haven't had the money in the bank? This is not in the public domain is it?

[inkitin] 15/11/2005 00:21

Company No 04445590 "Mooncrest Limited" - Incorporated 24th May 2002

Co.No. 04445590 Change of name "Omega Screenings Limited" - 18th July 2002

Co.No 04445590 Change of name "World Poker Masters Limited" - 4th November 2004

Seems as though the idea is at least a year old and a new company didn't need to be set up, simply a name change for a sleeping one.

[garysmith7] 15/11/2005 00:00

IJ In my view you make far too many negative assumptions with limited facts. I have pointed out why there is a plausible and legitimate positive explanation (and agree there could be a negative one too). I don't have the time to respond to your rather long post at the moment, if you can't see my viewpoint I hope other readers will. I think you have a rather tunnelled and dogmatic view and hoped you could be more objective.

I suppose the next post will be "content" in this circular posting cycle. I can't find evidence that the company has publicly stated they wholly owned 3000 hours. (I'm not talking about the possibility of inacurate journalism at the IC or Hearsay)
Let me know when you find the RNS as I genuinely can't.

CH is the largest private shareholder so has the most to lose.

[investorjon] 14/11/2005 23:08

Jabber: I meant that I would be happier, and I would suggest many shareholders would be happier if WPM was a DTC venture if it was to take place at all, and a CEO should in accordance with best practise pursue the interests within the company he is a CEO of, which is after all one of the things a CEO is paid for.

The rights I refer to are the intellectual and media rights, which DTC will only have now if they buy them off of WPM, when they shouldn't have to, they should have been there in the first place.

It made it all too messy for comfort, and I really think DTC could do without that sort of situation in the first place.

A lot more money could be made by pushing DTC...for shareholders and everyone else, and believe it or not I care and want DTC to succeed. I want CH to succeed too and I've made no secret of my admiration of his production and film skills.

Thanks for your comments re: bilateral knee operation.

Having thought long and hard about the DTC situation, I will break the habit of a lifetime and if people on this board would rather I posted ONLY praise about DTC, without any searching questions, then I will move on, I don't really need the money, and I don't really have a wish to upset shareholders who thusfar have suffered enough.

[investorjon] 14/11/2005 23:03

Gary how is it an interpretation, it is a fact? DTC should have had money in the bank shouldn't they...but now they haven't with the delay? DTC are paying Angela's wages? That is a loss whatever way you dress it up, as is a delay.

It is not possible that they have kept to their modus operandi is it, because the competition, not directly owned by DTC is out of DTC's hands, so they can't have presold that, as it's not their to sell, the rights as Jabber's links suggest go to the founder Mr Chris Hunt, not to DTC.

You then say IF DTC have kept to their modus operandi then they would not have lost out, but if you read my comments they are correct, as they say DTC has already lost out by not having the rights? That is correct isn't it after all you agree that DTC's only interest is in the production of the TV programme not in ownership of it, after all this is what you confirm in your post?

You accuse me of interpreting, yet you have interpeted (against facts) that DTC have kept to their modus operandi,when that hardly seems possible does it, when they don't own the rights to the program, and are being paid for the production of the program, which hasn't taken place has it!

Do you also believe the lame excuse about the Tsunami and the changed venue as a reason for the delay of the competition, when even now on WPM's own site it shows conclusively that there was only ever one venue advertised (the current one) and that there are still only 21 players and their competition requires 50?

Did you ever hear of a venue other than the existing one? Yes/No
Even with a venue change and excuse of Tsunami could the competition have gone ahead with only 21 out of the 50 players when the whole basis of the competition is the structure (like the golf masters competition which they quote) based on 50 players? Yes/No

Your comment on accounts seems to not realise that they ARE the latest results, as those for 2005 would not have to be produced yet or indeed even submitted yet, and instead of quoting these why not check with Companies House, then you would know...but again it seems easier for some of you to have a go at me, then to take the trouble to actually find out from someone other than those who may have previously given duff information. On top of that, as there has not been any competition, which is what WPM relies on, although there have been additional expenses since, so how do suppose that WPM has earnings or assets better than the published accounts?

You say "whilst you may be correct" well if I'm not post the companies house material? Post the full complement of poker players? Post details that the person on the WPM site is not actually a paid employee of Iambic, even though she has their email address?

I don't know if you do want transparency, as you seem content to take an opaque view when you can easily check for yourself if you really want to?

Did a post attributed to Mr Hunt to this board state effective that no money was being spent by DTC in the running of WPM? YES or NO?

Is it true that on the WPM from the beginning has been an employee of Iambic?

Iambic pays her wages, therefore DTC pays her wages, let alone any costs of the competition delay for a company that is not owned by DTC. So are their penalty clauses for DTC to claim?

Gary, you seem to have a slanted point when you suggest and actually confirm my point inadvertently, when you state:

"The deal as per the interims is to televise the tournament not take the risk of producing it. You can't have it both ways".

So why if that is true is an Iambic employee using time and energy in the organisation and running of what is a totally private company? SO DTC's just televising it is it, so why are we paying the wages for an Iambic employee on that private company's site.....as you say you can't have it both ways?

Do you think it was correct that this board only heard about CH's ownership of WPM on this board, months after an announcement by DTC (CH) of an agreement affectively by him as CEO of DTC and with him as owner of WPM without any disclosure? Yes or No?

If the deal is only to produce the program, then again you prove another point I made about DTC losing out on the rights? It should also be noted that is where I used the term losing out too?

I post here positive and negative, but some of the things that have happened with this company look decidely bad, and I'm afraid that's not me, it is the people doing it!

You mention also that 'if you are wrong you are doing a serious harm' inferring I am wrong, but companies house information wasn't wrong, and apart from which it figures that if I am right.

If I'm not right post figures that show it, post something that shows you were informed that CH owned WPM at the time of the announcement, post something tangible?

I'm always happy to apologise, always happy to learn, but I'm not gullible either, even if some want to believe at any cost, which is their right.

You may be interested to know (and not directed at anyone) that the 'asset' that most recidivist conmen possess is that they are believable time and time again, which is why they function and how they function, so I tend to be sceptical about most things and in the main this has served me very well.

You want the CEO's of these companies not to have the diversion of being forced to sue every person that makes libellous statements on a public bulletin board, (are you suggesting mine have been libellous?), but apparently don't mind a CEO setting up a private company in a similar line, which could have been expected to have been within the sphere of his job as CEO, keeping the rights with a private company, then announcing a deal publicly as the CEO of the quoted company, but forgetting the minor detail that he owns the other private company, and just after the quoted company announce an extra employee to release him to give him more time to concentrate on other projects.

The poker situation is hardly the only contentious issue is it?

[tom2468] 14/11/2005 20:59

popped my head into my crystal ball and found news


well, theres nowt else to do is there!

[garysmith7] 14/11/2005 19:18

IJ
It is your interpretation that the risk is with DTC you don't know for sure that they are. It is equally possible they have not deviated from their modus operandi.

The accounts filed at company's house are made upto May 2004 so you don't know the current status of WPM accounts including its cash balance.

If DTC are keeping within their modus operandi and not risking any money then how have they "lost out"? The deal as per the interims is to televise the tournament not take the risk of producing the tournament. You can't have it both ways.

As a shareholder of many companies I want transparency from their directors. I also want the CEO's of these companies not to have the diversion of being forced to sue every person that makes libellous statements on a public bulletin board.
So whilst what you are saying may be correct you are not in possession of the full facts and your theories rely on assumptions. If you are wrong you are you are doing serious harm to shareholders interest and I would not thank you for it.

[jabberstocky] 14/11/2005 11:28

Can you post the link again please.

Thanks IJ I couldn't find that on a google search and just came up with this July story on the tournament

Are those 20 named players all big draw names (I wouldn't know)?

[investorjon] 14/11/2005 11:24

jabber: Shouldn't start me off on the Poker Masters or the Poke DTC Shareholders, as I think it should be more aptly named:

What is happening there is that contrary to the cheap excuse in the last message from DTC about the Tsunami changing the venues (even though it's the same venue as always appeared on WPM site), the reason you have heard nothing is because they haven't got enough competitors, rendering the first excuse about the Tsunami even more ridiculous.

Go to the WPM site and you will see that they need 50 competitors and they have only got 21....So until they get 29 more there is no competition, either now, February or any other time.

Competitors are currently (assuming they don't pull out): Joe Beevers, Juha Helppi, David Benjamin, Howard Lederer, Patrick Bruel, Marcel Luske, Ralph Burd, Carlos Mortensen, Dave Colclough, Surinder Sunar, Freddie Deeb, Dave Ulliot, Harry Demetriou, Ram Vaswani, Annie Duke, Robert Williamson III, Antonio Estfandiari, Jani Sointula, Bruno Fitoussi, Mel Judah and Tony Guogo.

So 29 competitors short, with DTC not having the benefit of the cashflow they should, with delays at whose cost? With an Iambic employee's wages (Angela Hall) still being paid towards the running of what is a solely owned private company, not owned by DTC, thus again proving that the statement hastily sent about not one penny of DTC money being spent for WPM (not owned by DTC) proving ridiculous also.

It should be noted that DTC was ONLY commissioned for the production of the programme, not in running CH's private company, and player contact cannot possibly be argued as a production issue, it is an administration issue, a competition administration issue, and should not be funded by DTC.

Interesting too that DTC seem to have deviated in their modus operandi where they have always stated they are guaranteed a profit on any production, but where costs have been incurred here and where any 'risk' seems to be with DTC, who have already lost out by virtue of not having the rights, these being held by WPM, and in any delays, let alone the risk in cash shortfalls, where WPM have no money, as their accounts showed at Companies House.



This is one reason I think CH should fall on his sword as CEO and concentrate more on the production (but with DTC owning it!).

[jabberstocky] 14/11/2005 10:50

Post! Does the fact that the Royal Mail don't have an afternoon post these days indicate a certain lack of vitality!

I know what you mean - its visited its all time historical low and attracted some interest and is now a little higher, but seems sound asleap (or is it just pretending to be asleap).

Still, like you I would like to know what is happening with Poker Masters and MJ.